On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 1:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > To catch it locally, you can run: > > make test-lint-shell-syntax > > in the "t" directory. Alternatively, `make test-lint`, `make test` or > > `make prove` would also have caught the problem. > > "make test" is a bit too heavy-weight to use as an initial sanity > check for tests that are being newly developed, and I am wondering > if something like this can be added as a first-line sanity checking > tool. The idea is a simple "make" to build, while DEVELOPER=Yes is > set, would trigger the common linting any developer who is working > on new things needs to pay attention to. > > ifdef DEVELOPER > include config.mak.dev > +all:: check-developer > endif > > +check-developer: check-docs check-tests check-builtins check-headers > > +.PHONY: check-tests > +check-tests: > + $(MAKE) -C t/ test-lint Not a bad idea, though I don't think we need to hide the target behind DEVELOPER. The "first-line sanity checking" phrasing you used above suggested the name "make check-sanity" to me as being more meaningful and obvious than "make check-developer". However, upon reflection, "sanity" is perhaps too generic, thus might not convey that these checks are for code newly-developed (or changed) by developers, so perhaps "make check-developer" is indeed the better name choice.
